Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML
Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Sat, 28 May 2022 06:17 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D19C15791D for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 23:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653718665; bh=2t3FyZN+wSf7jEyFp7F5lW/iwszqqa2Q06aef+h3UYY=; h=Date:To:References:Cc:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=ebMRik1AA87gLt7WRCRX0dKtk5yZHkJ9b6AlzuB2fLtVMJbxVx9NSvRlsyR9Ay2ka qd13ugp0IJbsC0hUroFI+kn/B5lLeATZWSjJxVAPdoi2lJQIczghf9W+p9QncMVfQq 9AXGzP5neL1J+tFG3wjc3EuKy8hKwLir5grlJAgs=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Fri May 27 23:17:45 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FF5C147930; Fri, 27 May 2022 23:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653718664; bh=2t3FyZN+wSf7jEyFp7F5lW/iwszqqa2Q06aef+h3UYY=; h=Date:To:References:Cc:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=uShU9bGQd4C5mH9KX719jf/l/10lBrjchj9ktjBJcWEW2iO7U/GIUYxux80l0j7oW TBfNtvKxCJVAbb0oY2FuX7L1p6fXZ2pvex5Nsp+l041hAznHVfdIyplP4D7mGnTsKK 9t2fINW9L6UiVHreER0cG4nVOlEkTzu4pUaLtkjM=
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE64C14F74A for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 23:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.943
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pK554ab612_R for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 23:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1679C147930 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 27 May 2022 23:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 24S6HUCH142375 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 28 May 2022 08:17:31 +0200
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1653718653; bh=g7d+HaSgLSNggoKqz+r4TBZTHteniNI1BX99d32+Vm0=; h=Date:To:References:Cc:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=VCmwNZ5TmjyyjFMDUy7rYUNuAxNVR8NQPFN6r0cW7Ysu48JH19qUzD18cEo8TAwQp 6Tf7KyDU224bLMEjG81eF9ENSknFaPfUSzKmra1MgJGsEp7KXx8tQwYZmITOYhLPhF B+Dxo5j6RpcCaXUsxlUs6pz6givJGd3xaZTb0fIc=
Message-ID: <b9e83da3-6bd2-eae5-2223-2cd7f55ca16e@lear.ch>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 08:17:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <8297ac0d-56dd-1ec7-9baf-d0cd52c0076b@taugh.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <8297ac0d-56dd-1ec7-9baf-d0cd52c0076b@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/HUC-kU75AUU41WWSkvWRNLwW6cw>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0584497618465366668=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
Hi John, Since this looks like it can nearly all be automated, it mostly looks good to me. Two points: * The independent stream doesn't have a logo, and neither does the nascent Editorial stream. We should probably have something (I'm referring to PR#777). * Once we start adding metadata tags like this, it'd be good to find some way to track the policy sources so that we can track changing requirements. Eliot On 25.05.22 02:37, John R Levine wrote: > We have two xml2rfc tickets asking to add more meta tags in the > rendered HTML of RFCs. > > Ticket 757 is mine https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/757 > > It asks for the meta tags that Google Scholar uses. I know these are > the right tags because I added them to the HTML-ized versions of older > RFCs which are now at long last showing up in Google Scholar. > > Tickets 776 and 777 are from Mark Nottingham > https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/777 > > It asks for Open Graph metadata (see https://ogp.me/) which makes > links display nicely on Facebook, Twitter, some Wordpress sites, and > probably other places. The should work also for the HTML rendered > versions of I-D's. > > Are there other meta tags that people would find useful? Do we agree > that we want the OG tags? We already agreed on the Google Scholar > tags about a decade ago but it took a while to get around to it. > > If we like the OG tags, should I arrange to add them to the HTMLized > versions of pre-XML RFCs? > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John R Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Lars Eggert
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML (f… John R Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John R Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John R Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John R Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John R Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Eliot Lear
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] document dependence, was Meta decorat… John Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] document dependence, was Meta decorat… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] document dependence, was Meta decorat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Jay Daley
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML John Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML Martin J. Dürst